We Keep Coding

Resume interrupted thread

I want to resume the work of interrupted thread,please let me know some possible solutions for the same.
class RunnableDemo implements Runnable
{
public void run()
{
while(thread.isInterrupted())
{
try{}
catch(Exception e){ //exception caught}
}
}
}
If exception is caught, thread is interrupted, but even though exception is caught, i want thread to continue its work, so please suggest me some way to overcome this issue.
Thanks in advance

Thread interruption is something you choose to obey when writing a thread. So if you don't want your thread to be interrupted, don't check the interrupted status and continue regardless.
The only time you'll need try/catch statements (with respect to thread interruption) is when calling blocking methods that throw InterruptedException. Then you'll need to avoid letting that exception stop your thread's work.
Of course... you should give some thought about whether this is a suitable way to behave. Thread interruption is a helpful thing and choosing not to adhere to it can be annoying to users of your code.

I have written a reusable code for getting this feature where thread can be pause and resume. Please find the code below. Your can extend PausableTask and override task() method:
public abstract class PausableTask implements Runnable{
private ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
private Future<?> publisher;
protected volatile int counter;
private void someJob() {
System.out.println("Job Done :- " + counter);
}
abstract void task();
#Override
public void run() {
while(!Thread.currentThread().interrupted()){
task();
}
}
public void start(){
publisher = executor.submit(this);
}
public void pause() {
publisher.cancel(true);
}
public void resume() {
start();
}
public void stop() {
executor.shutdownNow();
}
}
Hope this helps. For further details check this link or give me shout in comment section.
http://handling-thread.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/pause-and-resume-thread.html

A thread get's interrupted only if someone called the interrupt() method of that thread and not because some other random exception was thrown while running your thread as you are thinking.
When the thread's interrupted() method is called, InterruptedException will be thrown in the thread if the thread is in the middle of a blocking operation (eg. IO read).
When the InterruptedException is thrown you should know that the interrupted status is cleared, so the next time you call isInterrupted() in your thread will give you false (even though you just cauth the InterruptedException)
Have this in mind while coding your threads. And if you don't understand what I am talking about stop coding multithreading and go read some books about concurrency in java.

One caveat: If your thread handles an InterruptedException while in a call to a third-party library, then you won't necessarily know how the library reacted to it (i.e., did it leave the library objects in a state when it makes sense for your program to continue using them?)
Some developers (including some library developers) mistakenly assume that an interrupt means, "shut down the program," and all they worry about is closing files, etc.; and not so much about whether the library can continue to be used.
Try it and see, but if you're writing code to control a spacecraft or a nuclear reactor or something, then you may want to do a little extra work to really find out what the library does.

As others already stated, usually interruption is the proper way to cancel a task. If you really need to implement a non-cancellable task, at least make sure to restore the interrupted-state of the thread when you're done with your non-interruptible work:
public void run() {
boolean interrupted = false;
try {
while (true) {
try {
callInterruptibleMethod();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
interrupted = true;
// fall through and retry
}
}
} finally {
if (interrupted) {
// restore interruption state
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
(From book: Java Concurrency in Practice)

Java thread doesn't stop/interrupt

I'm trying to terminate a thread but it doesn't interrupt or stop. All of this are part of controller of a software called Webots. I use this to simulate a multi robot system. In the controller of each robot, I start a thread which receive messages through robots receivers. This thread must start at first, and terminate when simulation ends.
The run method for this thread look like this:
public void run() {
while (true)
{
String M = recieveMessage();
char[] chars = M.toCharArray();
if(chars[0]==robotName||chars[0]=='0')
messages.add(M);
}
}
In the main controller I have code that look like this:
MessageThread MT = new MessageThread(messages, receiver,getName());
MT.start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
try
{
Thread.sleep(25); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); }
System.out.println(messages.get(messages.size()-1));
}
MT.interrupt();//MT = null;
System.out.println(MT.interrupted());
It's not important what I do in my main controller, so don't judge it. For example, messages is an ArrayList. It's like a buffer which MT put messages in and the main thread reads from. I use it because the receiver and emitter are not synchronized.
If I call interrupt() or MT = null but interrupted() it returns false and MT continues to run. Is there anything wrong in my code?
I read some topics like:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/misc/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html
How do you kill a Thread in Java?
interrupt() doesn't work
Java: How interrupt/stop a thread?
and so on but I couldn't find any useful answer.
Edit
Thanks everyone, I've made changes to my code. I added this to the MessageThread class:
private volatile boolean isRunning = true;
Then I used while(isRunning) instead of while(true) and I added
public void kill()
{
isRunning = false;
}
and called MT.kill() instead of MT.interrupt().
It worked but I couldn't find out what's wrong with interrupt(). I read the link which #ExtremeCoders recommended. However, I'm still confused. It says "a thread must support its own interruption". So do I have to overwrite the interrupt() method? I can't call interrupt to terminate a thread?
Thanks again.

Interrupting a thread just sets a flag on the thread. If the thread never checks the flag, it won't respond. By creating your own boolean member, you've duplicated that functionality unnecessarily.
Here's the general pattern for what you are trying to do:
#Override
public void run() {
while(!Thread.interrupted() {
/* Do something. */
}
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
This will allow you to call MT.interrupt() as you expected. It's better than creating your own flag and custom method to set it: you can use your Runnable task with high-level tools like ExecutorService and cancellation will work because you used the standard API; same is true for interruption of an entire ThreadGroup.
Calling Thread.interrupted() clears the interruption status of a thread; we set it by calling Thread.currentThread().interrupt(), the status is set again so that callers of run() can detect the interrupted state. This might not always be desirable however.

Java thread won't join

Okay I'm sure I'm missing something simple here but can't see it. I'm using a flag to end a thread and then joining it to clean up neatly, but the join never finishes it just gets stuck waiting. There is currently nothing in the thread's run loop so it isn't getting stuck in a separate loop.
Thread:
package com.nox.willywars;
public class GameThread extends Thread {
//{{Variables
private boolean running;
//}}
//{{Getters/Setters
public void setRunning(boolean running) {
this.running = running;
}
//}}
//{{Constructor
public GameThread() {
running = false;
}
//}}Constructor
//{{Public methods
#Override
public void run() {
while(running) {
///...CODE GO HERE
}
}
public boolean isRunning() {
return running;
}
//}}
}
Code that fails to stop it:
//{{Lifecycle methods
#Override
public void create() {
//LOAD! Probably debug temp
TileFactory.load();
mapScreen = new MapScreen();
setScreen(mapScreen);
gameThread = new GameThread();
gameThread.setRunning(true);
gameThread.start();
}
#Override
public void resize(int width, int height) {
}
#Override
public void pause() {
killGameThread();
}
private void killGameThread() {
if(gameThread != null) {
if(gameThread.isAlive() && gameThread.isRunning()) {
gameThread.setRunning(false);
boolean retry = true;
while(retry) {
try {
gameThread.interrupt();
gameThread.join();
retry = false;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
gameThread = null;
}
}
//}}
Currently it reaches gameThread.join() and gets stuck there, waiting for the thread to finish. Am I missing something here? As I understand the thread should finish once running is set to false and then joining should happen normally because it's already stopped.
Edit: Added some more code from the class that runs GameThread. Pause() is where KillGameThread is executed. I've made running volatile but it's had no effect.
I found another weird symptom too: Some people suggested looking at what's inside GameThread when it's stuck, so I went into the debugger. While join() is stuck I suspended the GameThread thread and saw it was on while(running), and running was definitely false. Then when I stepped over the code it exited the loop and finished correctly, seemingly caused by my debugging. It's as if the thread is somehow suspended?

first set the running flag as volatile
private volatile boolean running;
What does game thread do exactly, maybe it has blocked by some I/O operation.
and if the game thread doesn't sleep/wait/join, so interrupting it is useless.
you need to share the game thread code.

As user2511414 pointed out, try with using volatile. In short, this will make sure the value od running is always accessed directly and not cached.
It setting volatile won't solve the situation, he problem most probably lays in the code section of a GameThread#run method that you commented out.
You can try using jstack or jvisualvm to get a Thread Dump of the thread you're trying to join.
This will at least show you where is it hanging, and may lead you to a solution.

The running flag is not properly synchronised. This could (in theory) result in the thread not noticing the state change ... due to the way that the Java memory model works. You should either declare it as volatile or always access and update it in synchronized method calls (or synchronized blocks).
But (IMO) the real problem is in the way (actually the ways) that you are telling the thread to stop, and haw the thread is checking or responding.
If you are going to use a flag to tell the thread to stop, then the thread needs to check that flag frequently. If the thread could spend an indefinitely long amount of time doing something else between the checks, then it may never notice that it needs to stop.
If you are going to use Thread.interrupt() then:
Your code should be calling Thread.isInterrupted() to test the thread's "interrupted" status instead of an ad-hoc flag. Furthermore, it should be testing the status regularly.
Your code need to make sure that it handles the InterruptedException and InterruptedIOException properly. This applies all the way up the call stack.
Note that calling Thread.interrupt() doesn't actually interrupt the thread in most cases. In most cases, it just sets a flag that needs to be tested manually. The only cases you get more than that is in certain blocking calls; e.g. Object.wait(...) and some IO calls.
You've left out most of the code where these things ought to happen. The best we can say is that the problem is most likely in code you haven't shown us.

How to stop a java thread gracefully?

I wrote a thread, it is taking too much time to execute and it seems it is not completely done. I want to stop the thread gracefully. Any help ?

The good way to do it is to have the run() of the Thread guarded by a boolean variable and set it to true from the outside when you want to stop it, something like:
class MyThread extends Thread
{
volatile boolean finished = false;
public void stopMe()
{
finished = true;
}
public void run()
{
while (!finished)
{
//do dirty work
}
}
}
Once upon a time a stop() method existed but as the documentation states
This method is inherently unsafe. Stopping a thread with Thread.stop causes it to unlock all of the monitors that it has locked (as a natural consequence of the unchecked ThreadDeath exception propagating up the stack). If any of the objects previously protected by these monitors were in an inconsistent state, the damaged objects become visible to other threads, potentially resulting in arbitrary behavior.
That's why you should have a guard..

The bad part about using a flag to stop your thread is that if the thread is waiting or sleeping then you have to wait for it to finish waiting/sleeping. If you call the interrupt method on the thread then that will cause the wait or sleep call to be exited with an InterruptedException.
(A second bad part about the flag approach is that most nontrivial code is going to be utilizing libraries like java.util.concurrent, where the classes are specifically designed to use interruption to cancel. Trying to use the hand rolled flag in a task passed into an Executor is going to be awkward.)
Calling interrupt() also sets an interrupted property that you can use as a flag to check whether to quit (in the event that the thread is not waiting or sleeping).
You can write the thread's run method so that the InterruptedException is caught outside whatever looping logic the thread is doing, or you can catch the exception within the loop and close to the call throwing the exception, setting the interrupt flag inside the catch block for the InterruptedException so that the thread doesn't lose track of the fact that it was interrupted. The interrupted thread can still keep control and finish processing on its own terms.
Say I want to write a worker thread that does work in increments, where there's a sleep in the middle for some reason, and I don't want quitting the sleep to make processing quit without doing the remaining work for that increment, I only want it to quit if it is in-between increments:
class MyThread extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted())
{
doFirstPartOfIncrement();
try {
Thread.sleep(10000L);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// restore interrupt flag
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
doSecondPartOfIncrement();
}
}
}
Here is an answer to a similar question, including example code.

You should not kill Thread from other one. It's considered as fairly bad habit. However, there are many ways. You can use return statement from thread's run method.
Or you can check if thread has already been interrupted and then it will cancel it's work. F.e. :
while (!isInterrupted()) {
// doStuff
}

Make a volatile boolean stop somewhere. Then in the code that runs in the thread, regularly do
if (stop) // end gracefully by breaking out of loop or whatever
To stop the thread, set stop to true.
I think you must do it manually this way. After all, only the code running in the thread has any idea what is and isn't graceful.

You need to send a stop-message to the Thread and the Thread itself needs to take action if the message has been received. This is pretty easy, if the long-running action is inside loop:
public class StoppableThread extends Thread {
private volatile boolean stop = false;
public void stopGracefully() {
stop = true;
}
public void run() {
boolean finished = false;
while (!stop && !finished) {
// long running action - finished will be true once work is done
}
}
}

For a thread to stop itself, no one seems to have mentioned (mis)using exception:
abstract class SelfStoppingThread extends Thread {
#Override
public final void run() {
try {
doRun();
} catch (final Stop stop) {
//optional logging
}
}
abstract void doRun();
protected final void stopSelf() {
throw new Stop();
}
private static final class Stop extends RuntimeException {};
}
A subclass just need to override doRun() normally as you would with a Thread, and call stopSelf() whenever it feels like it wants to stop. IMO it feels cleaner than using a flag in a while loop.

How do you kill a Thread in Java?

How do you kill a java.lang.Thread in Java?

See this thread by Sun on why they deprecated Thread.stop(). It goes into detail about why this was a bad method and what should be done to safely stop threads in general.
The way they recommend is to use a shared variable as a flag which asks the background thread to stop. This variable can then be set by a different object requesting the thread terminate.

Generally you don't..
You ask it to interrupt whatever it is doing using Thread.interrupt() (javadoc link)
A good explanation of why is in the javadoc here (java technote link)

In Java threads are not killed, but the stopping of a thread is done in a cooperative way. The thread is asked to terminate and the thread can then shutdown gracefully.
Often a volatile boolean field is used which the thread periodically checks and terminates when it is set to the corresponding value.
I would not use a boolean to check whether the thread should terminate. If you use volatile as a field modifier, this will work reliable, but if your code becomes more complex, for instead uses other blocking methods inside the while loop, it might happen, that your code will not terminate at all or at least takes longer as you might want.
Certain blocking library methods support interruption.
Every thread has already a boolean flag interrupted status and you should make use of it. It can be implemented like this:
public void run() {
try {
while (!interrupted()) {
// ...
}
} catch (InterruptedException consumed)
/* Allow thread to exit */
}
}
public void cancel() { interrupt(); }
Source code adapted from Java Concurrency in Practice. Since the cancel() method is public you can let another thread invoke this method as you wanted.

One way is by setting a class variable and using it as a sentinel.
Class Outer {
public static volatile flag = true;
Outer() {
new Test().start();
}
class Test extends Thread {
public void run() {
while (Outer.flag) {
//do stuff here
}
}
}
}
Set an external class variable, i.e. flag = true in the above example. Set it to false to 'kill' the thread.

I want to add several observations, based on the comments that have accumulated.
Thread.stop() will stop a thread if the security manager allows it.
Thread.stop() is dangerous. Having said that, if you are working in a JEE environment and you have no control over the code being called, it may be necessary; see Why is Thread.stop deprecated?
You should never stop stop a container worker thread. If you want to run code that tends to hang, (carefully) start a new daemon thread and monitor it, killing if necessary.
stop() creates a new ThreadDeathError error on the calling thread and then throws that error on the target thread. Therefore, the stack trace is generally worthless.
In JRE 6, stop() checks with the security manager and then calls stop1() that calls stop0(). stop0() is native code.
As of Java 13 Thread.stop() has not been removed (yet), but Thread.stop(Throwable) was removed in Java 11. (mailing list, JDK-8204243)

There is a way how you can do it. But if you had to use it, either you are a bad programmer or you are using a code written by bad programmers. So, you should think about stopping being a bad programmer or stopping using this bad code.
This solution is only for situations when THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.
Thread f = <A thread to be stopped>
Method m = Thread.class.getDeclaredMethod( "stop0" , new Class[]{Object.class} );
m.setAccessible( true );
m.invoke( f , new ThreadDeath() );

I'd vote for Thread.stop().
As for instance you have a long lasting operation (like a network request).
Supposedly you are waiting for a response, but it can take time and the user navigated to other UI.
This waiting thread is now a) useless b) potential problem because when he will get result, it's completely useless and he will trigger callbacks that can lead to number of errors.
All of that and he can do response processing that could be CPU intense. And you, as a developer, cannot even stop it, because you can't throw if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) lines in all code.
So the inability to forcefully stop a thread it weird.

The question is rather vague. If you meant “how do I write a program so that a thread stops running when I want it to”, then various other responses should be helpful. But if you meant “I have an emergency with a server I cannot restart right now and I just need a particular thread to die, come what may”, then you need an intervention tool to match monitoring tools like jstack.
For this purpose I created jkillthread. See its instructions for usage.

There is of course the case where you are running some kind of not-completely-trusted code. (I personally have this by allowing uploaded scripts to execute in my Java environment. Yes, there are security alarm bell ringing everywhere, but it's part of the application.) In this unfortunate instance you first of all are merely being hopeful by asking script writers to respect some kind of boolean run/don't-run signal. Your only decent fail safe is to call the stop method on the thread if, say, it runs longer than some timeout.
But, this is just "decent", and not absolute, because the code could catch the ThreadDeath error (or whatever exception you explicitly throw), and not rethrow it like a gentlemanly thread is supposed to do. So, the bottom line is AFAIA there is no absolute fail safe.

'Killing a thread' is not the right phrase to use. Here is one way we can implement graceful completion/exit of the thread on will:
Runnable which I used:
class TaskThread implements Runnable {
boolean shouldStop;
public TaskThread(boolean shouldStop) {
this.shouldStop = shouldStop;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Thread has started");
while (!shouldStop) {
// do something
}
System.out.println("Thread has ended");
}
public void stop() {
shouldStop = true;
}
}
The triggering class:
public class ThreadStop {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Start");
// Start the thread
TaskThread task = new TaskThread(false);
Thread t = new Thread(task);
t.start();
// Stop the thread
task.stop();
System.out.println("End");
}
}

There is no way to gracefully kill a thread.
You can try to interrupt the thread, one commons strategy is to use a poison pill to message the thread to stop itself
public class CancelSupport {
public static class CommandExecutor implements Runnable {
private BlockingQueue<String> queue;
public static final String POISON_PILL = “stopnow”;
public CommandExecutor(BlockingQueue<String> queue) {
this.queue=queue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
boolean stop=false;
while(!stop) {
try {
String command=queue.take();
if(POISON_PILL.equals(command)) {
stop=true;
} else {
// do command
System.out.println(command);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
stop=true;
}
}
System.out.println(“Stopping execution”);
}
}
}
BlockingQueue<String> queue=new LinkedBlockingQueue<String>();
Thread t=new Thread(new CommandExecutor(queue));
queue.put(“hello”);
queue.put(“world”);
t.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
queue.put(“stopnow”);
http://anandsekar.github.io/cancel-support-for-threads/

Generally you don't kill, stop, or interrupt a thread (or check wheter it is interrupted()), but let it terminate naturally.
It is simple. You can use any loop together with (volatile) boolean variable inside run() method to control thread's activity. You can also return from active thread to the main thread to stop it.
This way you gracefully kill a thread :) .

Attempts of abrupt thread termination are well-known bad programming practice and evidence of poor application design. All threads in the multithreaded application explicitly and implicitly share the same process state and forced to cooperate with each other to keep it consistent, otherwise your application will be prone to the bugs which will be really hard to diagnose. So, it is a responsibility of developer to provide an assurance of such consistency via careful and clear application design.
There are two main right solutions for the controlled threads terminations:
Use of the shared volatile flag
Use of the pair of Thread.interrupt() and Thread.interrupted() methods.
Good and detailed explanation of the issues related to the abrupt threads termination as well as examples of wrong and right solutions for the controlled threads termination can be found here:
https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/java/THI05-J.+Do+not+use+Thread.stop%28%29+to+terminate+threads

Here are a couple of good reads on the subject:
What Do You Do With InterruptedException?
Shutting down threads cleanly

I didn't get the interrupt to work in Android, so I used this method, works perfectly:
boolean shouldCheckUpdates = true;
private void startupCheckForUpdatesEveryFewSeconds() {
Thread t = new Thread(new CheckUpdates());
t.start();
}
private class CheckUpdates implements Runnable{
public void run() {
while (shouldCheckUpdates){
//Thread sleep 3 seconds
System.out.println("Do your thing here");
}
}
}
public void stop(){
shouldCheckUpdates = false;
}

Thread.stop is deprecated so how do we stop a thread in java ?
Always use interrupt method and future to request cancellation
When the task responds to interrupt signal, for example, blocking queue take method.
Callable < String > callable = new Callable < String > () {
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
String result = "";
try {
//assume below take method is blocked as no work is produced.
result = queue.take();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
return result;
}
};
Future future = executor.submit(callable);
try {
String result = future.get(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
logger.error("Thread timedout!");
return "";
} finally {
//this will call interrupt on queue which will abort the operation.
//if it completes before time out, it has no side effects
future.cancel(true);
}
When the task does not respond to interrupt signal.Suppose the task performs socket I/O which does not respond to interrupt signal and thus using above approach will not abort the task, future would time out but the cancel in finally block will have no effect, thread will keep on listening to socket. We can close the socket or call close method on connection if implemented by pool.
public interface CustomCallable < T > extends Callable < T > {
void cancel();
RunnableFuture < T > newTask();
}
public class CustomExecutorPool extends ThreadPoolExecutor {
protected < T > RunnableFuture < T > newTaskFor(Callable < T > callable) {
if (callable instanceof CancellableTask)
return ((CancellableTask < T > ) callable).newTask();
else
return super.newTaskFor(callable);
}
}
public abstract class UnblockingIOTask < T > implements CustomCallable < T > {
public synchronized void cancel() {
try {
obj.close();
} catch (IOException e) {
logger.error("io exception", e);
}
}
public RunnableFuture < T > newTask() {
return new FutureTask < T > (this) {
public boolean cancel(boolean mayInterruptIfRunning) {
try {
this.cancel();
} finally {
return super.cancel(mayInterruptIfRunning);
}
}
};
}
}

After 15+ years of developing in Java there is one thing I want to say to the world.
Deprecating Thread.stop() and all the holy battle against its use is just another bad habit or design flaw unfortunately became a reality... (eg. want to talk about the Serializable interface?)
The battle is focusing on the fact that killing a thread can leave an object into an inconsistent state. And so? Welcome to multithread programming. You are a programmer, and you need to know what you are doing, and yes.. killing a thread can leave an object in inconsistent state. If you are worried about it use a flag and let the thread quit gracefully; but there are TONS of times where there is no reason to be worried.
But no.. if you type thread.stop() you're likely to be killed by all the people who looks/comments/uses your code. So you have to use a flag, call interrupt(), place if(!flag) all around your code because you're not looping at all, and finally pray that the 3rd-party library you're using to do your external call is written correctly and doesn't handle the InterruptException improperly.